Actually, I read your post very carefully, to try to make sure I had its content down. (It can be difficult on an internet website to get subtleties.) And yes, although I like to mix it up, I really wandered if what you wrote was tongue in cheek, a spoof.

Industry lobbyist, industry executive. Why play a word game? I know you understand the thrust of the point. If not, then there is nothing I can say to you; you have your blinders on by choice.....an admonishment you made to ap in a previous post. I repeat, I find myself in stunned amazement at your assertions, which cannot be supported in light of 100 years of well documented regulatory history.

As for the "scientific staff." I do not know your background, or how your personal experiences have formed your world view. I only know mine. And in my experience the notion that "scientific staff" recommendations, in the context of the world of politics and regulatory institutions (or corporate political priorities.......and these days, academic institutions), is untainted or the final word can only be described as bizarre. I thought long and hard about using the term "childlike" because of its obvious offensive connotation. But I stand by it. (I'm not saying you are a some sort of a bad guy. Its just that "childlike" seemed apropos in describing the assertion that Democratic regulators have a consistent history of behaving nobly while Republican regulators consistently don't.) If you want to hold on to those notions of regulators who wear their hats frontwise under Democratic administrations, and turn them backwards under Republicans, well, suit yourself.

Switching gears, on the mortgage crisis, I'm not sure exactly what has been "trotted out" and is "well discredited." This sounds alot like "the global warming debate is over" argument. Well, no its not.

I noted that you start your argument with something about "6 of the last 8 years of GOP control." A real and non-partisan understanding of the root causes of the mortgage crisis starts at least a decade earlier and is much, much, more complicated than who's-on-first right now. If you stick by your premise, I'm not optimistic this debate can go anywhere useful.

Now you probably think I'm a total prick by now. I'm not. But 12 years of doing what I do and the daily blood curdling debates it involves makes one rather direct, and not good at pulling punches when you truly think the logic and facts of your (debater/partner) are sloppy or incorrect. There are many people here who's posts I have stopped reading because they are obviously worthless causes. I actually enjoy yours. If you think I've got this stuff wrong, then let me have it. I won't be offended. I hope I have not done same to you.

I'll ignore the twaddle about a spoof, about my childlike point of view. I realize you believe that it helps discussion to include insults along with the argument.

So far as Bush is concerned, you may believe that he did a fine job. I differ.

How exactly is the mortgage crisis due to Democrats? Are you going to trot out the well-discredited Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac argument? For 6 of the past 8 years the GOP controlled both Congress and the Executive branch. I know they want to take no responsibility for what has happened, but it strains credulity.

I agree that regulatory agencies tend to develop into industry advocates, a tendency to be fought vigorously.

I remember reading a book, maybe 30 years ago, by a great economist. One of the themes in a chapter on regulation was how the appointees to newly created regulatory agencies tended to morph over time into former industry executives (after all, who knows more about the industry?) and how contorted and distorted the mission of the agencies became over time as regulators and industry participants did their self serving dance. To make his point, the author of this book cited chapter and verse some of the ridiculous historical issues generated by these regulation mills. Talk about grotesque.

The book? 'Free to Choose' by Milton Friedman. The regulatory bodies and the episodes recounted? The Interstate Commerce Commission, formed circa 1900 with a whole host of embarrassing episodes. The Food and Drug administration, formed circa the 1950's, again with a number of silly results. The Consumer Products Safety Commission formed in the early 1970's. The book was written in the late 70's That's a lot of history. Both Democratic and Republican. He has passed, but one can only wonder how thick that chapter would be if he could to write it today.

And now you waltz in and inform us that regulatory agencies do good work "but mostly limited to Democratic administrations" and then go on to take a swipe at George Bush for appointing a former industry exec??

My God, man. I know its fashionable to criticize all things Bush. But you can't be serious. Your comments reflect a childlike sense of historical perspective and understanding. And if that picture is accurate, you're not a child. (Not to even mention your apparent avoidance of the mother of all regulatory debacles - the mortgage crisis - with fresh, not yet dried blood, on Democratic hands.)

In an earlier post, you said something about intentional misunderstanding?? Whatup with your post, brother??

So far as Greenspan's statement that he was mistaken to believe that the free market would protect us and thus no need for regulations: I wouldn't call it "overblown" (indeed, I'm not sure what you mean). He said that his belief in the self-regulatory ability of the free market was wrong---a "mistake." That's good enough for me.

Greenspans testimony got a lot of press, but really....its overblown.

Milton Friedman once observed that the only problem with capitalism, is capitalists, but the problem with socialism is socialism.

A parallel comment would cite the problem with government bureaucrats....or politicians.

Of course capitalists will behave badly at times. But there is no govt pol or regulator fairy that will protect us either. As I have commenterd here frequently. The mortgage mess was predicted by regulators. But the awful grilling the well intentioned - and correctly assessing - Fannie regulators received from the pols makes you want to avert your eyes...and make you want to throw the pols in jail for failure to act. The only thing worse than reliance on markets is reliance on politicians.

There is a poster on this forum named "odograph" who wisely observed recently that everyone needs a good spleen venting once in awhile. The people who comment on this forum are obviously here because they are emotionally involved in politics and public policy. It would be pretty dry otherwise.

I suspect most of the commentators understand this, and will cut you some slack.

Obama Power Aggrandizement Supporter: "This is the worst recession of my life!"
Homer Simpson: "This is the worst recession of your life, so far."

A perfect example, ap, of working to misunderstand a clear statement.

I respectfully submit you are being unnecessarily literal.

A politician who says worst SINCE the Great Depression knows what he/she is doing. They mean to invoke the Great Depression.

It ain't rocket science.

Barack Obama has said that this is the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

Is there something complicated about plain English?

Saying that something is the worst crisis SINCE the Great Depression is not saying something is as bad as the Great Depression. It is the worst SINCE then. Is the word "SINCE" unambiguous somehow? Is it unclear? Do you interpret the word "SINCE" as meaning "INCLUDING"?

I don't mean to be a prick about this... actually I don't care... call me a prick if you want. But if you can't understand what the word "SINCE" means, then I really can't help you.

I mean, damn it, WTF. This isn't rocket science. F___ it.

What in the world am I missing here? I just cannot understand what the issue is. SINCE SINCE SINCE SINCE SINCE SINCE.... Ugh.

Sometimes I detect an earnest effort to misunderstand the arguments from the other side.

like this interview with Krugman:

Q: What was the problem with Greenspan, and where and when did he go wrong?
A: Greenspan is the real thing. He believes the Fed can be the designated driver, the one who takes you home safely after the party has gotten crazy. So he brushed aside any worries about regulating and taking precautionary measures. His belief in the perfection of free markets led us into the ditch we're in now.

so Greenspan was such a free market ideologue that he thought he could act as a designated driver for the economy? those are mutually exclusive ideas.

*******

The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren't lending; businesses and consumers aren't spending. Let's not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression. So will we "act swiftly and boldly" enough to stop that from happening? We'll soon find out.

i guess i see your distinction, i just find it somewhat unconvincing.

'looks like the beginning of a second great depression' & 'will we act swiftly enough' v 'No serious person is arguing that our current recessions is as bad as the Great Depression.'

For this to be it, the real economy has to respond really quickly to improving bank numbers ...

The most anyone serious has said is that this may be the worst downturn SINCE the Great Depressions (i.e. in the post-War period).

Unless you're characterizing the president-elect as non-serious, that's not true. Barack Obama has said that this is the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Actually, I think he misspoke: it's the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.